James Sinclair at Network blog Stop and Move says these short-term setbacks shouldn’t be used to derail decades of planning, especially when construction is finally poised to begin:

What really bothers me about the peer review recommendation is that they seem to have no real grasp of the project timeline, and the funding timeline. And for a group of experts, that’s a problem.

Lets take a look at the real timeline: The current HSR planning actually began in the 1980s. The line is scheduled to be done in the 2030′s. That’s 50 years from start to finish…

And yet this peer review group is ready to throw things out because the current House of Representatives is hostile to rail and has blocked new federal funding… That makes no sense at all.

Construction is scheduled to begin this year, but nobody is expecting a train to start rolling until 2020 at best. That’s because it’s a huge, complicated project that is being done in segments and in phases. For example, while Bakersfield-Fresno is almost done with the engineering phase, San Jose-San Francisco is a few years away from being ready to go. Even if we had $50bn sitting around today, they couldn’t be laying track because the environmental and engineering reports aren’t ready, and there’s no magic button to speed of the mandatory process.

There will be no new federal money in 2012. We know that. And that’s ok. It’s sort of not needed in 2012. 2012 will see only the very start of construction, and there’s plenty on hand for that. There’s more than enough for 2013 as well. And you know what happens in 2013? A new house is elected, and with the way the politics in this country have been swinging over the past 5 years, one can imagine, indeed, one can expect, the house to swing left after the next cycle. And a left leaning house is more willing to support rail.

Ultimately, Sinclair says, allowing people who oppose HSR for political reasons to delay the project would be an irresponsible waste of taxpayers’ money.

Elsewhere on the Network today: The Political Environment reports that a Wisconsin transportation committee, populated largely by construction interests, is pushing for new sources of revenue to support road projects. A St. Louis resident resolves to ride transit more in 2012 on NextStopSTL. And Bike Delaware expounds on the “sorry mate I didn’t see you” legal defense for negligent drivers.

If the other HSR projects in other states are as poorly planned as the HSR project in California, they deserve to have their funding cut. The CHSRA business plan cals for ramming viaducts through residential neighborhoods and projects New York traffic in Merced! HSR is nothing but political pork for well connected players. Half the money should be invested in new rolling stock, signaling and track for traditional rail.

Matt Matasci

I love anonymous comments with no actual sources for their claims.

“cals (sic) for ramming viaducts through residential neighborhoods and projects New York traffic in Merced! “

Got a source for that claim?

Anonymous

Anonymous comments? No actual sources? Excuuuuse me, I did cite a source: the CHSRA business plan. Guess you haven’t read it. I suggest that you peruse the highlights in the California Rail News which you will find at: http://www.calrailnews.com/.

Paul Peterson

50 years??? That’s absolutely insane – and just for one line! How long is it going to take to finish a useable network of trains in the regions of this country? Poor America.

Bolwerk

Dude, I was adjusting my clock, fell, and hit my head on the toilet and that’s where I came up with this awesome idea to fix all our transit problems: buses. Hell with that rail garbage. It’s so 19th century. I want to ride around in style in a bus – you can’t get kind of style on a train, and even if you could, trains are too slow. The busfairy will save CAHSR! Just like she can save the Port Jervis line!

http://pulse.yahoo.com/_JP6A5RCCQH37ZFXO3MJT752N5E James

I love how critics try to have to both ways when the San Joaquin Valley is concerned. On the one hand, nobody lives there: the Valley is nothing but cows and orange groves. On the other hand, Cal HSR is going to plow through bustling towns and residential neighborhoods. Which is it????

Richard Mlynarik

Everyone who cares about U.S. high-speed rail is watching California right now.

Sure they are.

What’s happened is that a large engineering consultancy, with a long and consistent record of public works fraud, has completely captured a state project, gamed “alternatives analysis” to maximize the profits of contractors and minimize public benefit, systematically and deliberately lied about ridership and costs, concealed “unexpected” cost blowouts until guns were held to heads (and beyond), and has put back the cause of HSR — and more generally, of public transportation, since the same cast of criminals are a trade-protected cartel that excludes professional, ethical involvement in US projects — back by decades.

And the solution is supposed to be to reward these scammers by throwing more public money at them?

If you want HSR in the US, start with firing and prosecutions.

http://twitter.com/markvalli mark vallianatos

climate change is a growing threat, unemployment is high, rates for government borrowing are historically low and we are arguing about whether to build high speed rail? Shame on all the cowards, barbarians, plutocrats and car addicts dedicated to ruining our future.

Anonymous

Stop stereotyping people, Mark. Opposing the CHSRA and its billion dollar boondoggle does not make one a “car addict”. The proposal, as submitted is far from being a “smart project.”

Anonymous

HSR was touted as an alternative to flying or driving from SF to LA. Well, when I fly or drive from SF to LA, I do not go through Merced, Fresno and Bakersfield. Stopping in these valley towns will only add time to the trip. The HSR line should go nonstop from the Bay Area to the LA Basin on the west side of the San Joaquin Valley where land acquisition costs are lower. It should not go ramming through valley towns on giant viaducts, as proposed, which will only add to the cost. As for where to start? How about bridging the gap between Bakersfield and the Santa Clarita Valley. That’s the direction HSR should take, instead of making a hundred plus mile detour through Mojave and Palmdale.

Mdw1

Wow…”cowards, barbarians, plutocrats and car addicts.” I’ll tell you what, sunshine. Only a completely brain-dead imbecile would call a boon-doggle that’s already tripled in cost without a yard of track being laid “smart.”

This isn’t the EU and it isn’t Japan. HSR is supported by a whining pack of bobble-headed, drooling, ’60s-style, Berkeley drones in Sacramento who can find a million ways to spend everyone elses’ money.

Look at the route. It’s jerrymandering at its political best with a cost of $198 million per mile.

Their conclusion: …”we cannot overemphasize the fact that moving ahead on the HSR project without credible sources of adequate funding, without a definitive business model, without a strategy to maximize the independent utility and value to the State[of the Central Valley segment], and without the appropropriate management resources, represents an immense financial risk on the part of the State of California.”

http://twitter.com/snogglethorpe Miles Bader

What’s with the spittle-flecked knee-jerk hatred some people seem to have for viaducts anyway…? Viaducts are more expensive than at-grade construction, but there’s otherwise nothing particularly wrong with them—yes even in residential neighborhoods—and they’re the right solution in many cases (but they are more expensive, so obviously you don’t want to use them when not necessary).

How do I know this? I live in a residential neighborhood, and quite a few passenger rail lines pass near my house, both at grade and on viaduct. Both are fine.

Most of the objections seem like nothing but mindlessly conservative “OMG, SOMETHING MIGHT CHANGE!! RESIST! RESIST!”

http://twitter.com/snogglethorpe Miles Bader

Note what beer they’re serving…

Anonymous

Notwithstanding the community opposition that viaducts have engendered, wouldn’t the expense be enough reason to oppose them, Miles? In the 2009 plan, structures were $7.0 billion. In the 2012 plan, they have increased 221% to $22.5 billion. In Taiwan, viaducts have reduced the lifespan of the track to 10 years, because they are sinking in alluvial soil, just like the soil in the Central Valley. The CHSR weighs in at $190 million/mile as opposed to $25 million/mile for the Rhin-Rhone line in France. Only 2% of the Rhin-Rhone line are on viaducts as opposed to 40% for the CHSR. The CHSRA has already squandered $800 million and has zero, zip, zilch to show for it. Source: California Rail News http://www.calrailnews.com/crn/1211/crn1211.pdf

I also object to your characterization of HSR opponents as mindless conservative opposition to change. One of the strongest critics of CHSRA are the Train Riders Association of California (TRAC), an association of rail advocates who object to the way HSR has been gamed by consultants for the maximum benefit of contractors at the expense of the public good.

Anonymous

When this is built people are going to eat their criticizing words. We need this for more than just alternatives. It’s going to be easier to move tourists throughout the state and hopefully make it more attractive (the state). It’s going to be so beneficial to the state. And even when it does succeed the people that apposed it will keep doing so because “what works best for the state” isn’t what their looking for, it’s their investments their worried about. This bugs me.

Follow Streetsblog

Transportation for America

America's transportation system is half a century behind--causing unnecessary pollution, expense, and congestion. We need our leaders to invest in public transportation, high-speed passenger rail, streets safe for biking and walking, maintaining our roads and transit systems, and green innovation.